Oh, the luxury of being Eurocentric...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Oh come on. Army aviation is the luxury version of LRS insertion and LRS exfiltration.
At Baumholder (12 x15 km, 400m maximum elevation change), yes. At Fort Irwin (110X80km, 1,500m elevation changes) No. Even more so in Alaska where Reid11B is located and trains -- and where there are few road and a lot of boreal forest and squishy tundra, No. In Afghanistan, No. This:
Quote:
In most scenarios you could infiltrate and exfiltrate in a Lada Niva without unacceptable risk.
may work in Germany or much of Europe. It will not in the deserts of the ME or North Africa, in the Hindu Kush or in the Jungles of Africa, South America or South East Asia. It'll get you killed quickly in most scenarios outside Europe.
Quote:
Competent and motivated LRS can their job do without such support, even if that means that the losses rise by a few per cent.
Losses aren't the major issue -- time and distance are the issues. Foot and Vehicle infil and exfil takes a lot of time...
Quote:
Army aviation wouldn't be of much use for LRS in face of well-equipped opponents any way.
Without going into any TTP, that is just flat incorrect. Both the Fernspählehrkompanie and a number of US LRSU use that method routinely in exercises and elsewhere agasinst some technologically advanced opponents.
Quote:
Btw, can I quote your assertion that the U.S. lacks army aviation assets? It'll be good for many laughs with friends all over the world.
As he pointed out, that's not what he said. Having a desire to snipe is okay, doing that without understanding or noticing all that is said or written can cause one to have to have a foot surgically removed from ones mouth... :D
As Steve Blair mentioned, that lack of direct control of Aviation has been problematic since Viet Nam -- and it was in Desert Storm and has been currently. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution; the guys who are really good at contested flights don't like to haul the nut and bolt LRS guys...
Quote:
I save this file under "encountered yet another quality exaggeration, zero casualty tolerance peacetime attitude".
No one mentioned casualties other than you...
You're going to file it there? Really? I filed it under the 'All Wars will be as I Wish Them Syndrome' heading; got a bunch of posts there from Americans and others who think all wars will go a certain way and that detailed knowledge of one war, one terrain set, one Army's peculiarities lend them omnipotent expertise. Those folks always forget there are other places and other ways of doing things...
Armies that operate worldwide have to make a lot of undesirable compromises. It would be great if they could program and train more narrowly and everything was more predictable -- but it never is so they cannot.:eek:
We can disagree on all that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Infil for 500 km cannot be done with helicopters if the enemy is well-equipped....A more reasonable approach is to infil the first 100-200 km as normal and then simply grab a civilian vehicle as a ride. The force density and threat of police checkpoints will be marginal that deep behind the battlefield...A helicopter ride for 2x500 km is certainly neither necessary nor worth it.
In reverse order, METT-TC and you cannot say that as a certainty, only that it is true in your opinion.
I'm dazzled with the thought of five or six big, pale Gweilo scuffing a Lifan 620 and wandering around Guangdong and not arousing the populace to get on their cellphones and call the local Cops. Hopefully, they'll steal one with a full tank of fuel... :D
Depends on many factors. Again, you state an opinion, not a certainty. Not by any means and that's been proven.
Quote:
Compare your Vietnam IDs with foreign IDs and you'll see that their army aviation support is anywhere from non-existing to much smaller.
So? That's irrelevant. We should not use a capability we have because others do not have it? Conversely,, the fact that we have many more than most arbitrarily means it's a luxury? Weird logic...
Quote:
No LRS establishment needs to atrophy only because there aren't enough helicopters.
No one is suggesting that is the case, though I still contend your Eurocentrism is showing. Worldwide terrain and combat demands introduce more variables than a land war in northwestern Europe might require.
Quote:
Besides; speeds are only meaningful in relation. The slowness of high altitude combat affects both friend and foe. This relative slowness in comparison to other operations is ceteris paribus not matched by relative slowness in comparison to the enemy and thus not relevant here.
Huh? I agree with the first sentence. The rest of it is diversionary. What is relevant here is the time factor, not speed. That time factor depends on ALL aspects of METT-TC, terrain is but one consideration. Distance affects that time factor as much or more than terrain. So to do does the attitude of civilians in the area, they are likely to be a greater concern than troops and checkpoints. Most of the deep LRS penetrations in Desert Storm and in both current wars that were compromised owed that to local civilians. There were bad results in a case or two. ..